Part Datasheet Verification and Updates
Thought for 2 mins 27 sec
I reviewed the current part project against the datasheet and the project data.
Result
- The Datasheet URL is already set, so I did not search the web or update that property. The part-project sync workflow says to only do the web-search/update step when that property is missing or empty
- The current part definition has major symbol/footprint mismatches versus the datasheet.
- The biggest issue is pin count: the project currently has 14 terminal elements / 14 pads, while the datasheet pinout shows 6 numbered pins total. The sync rules require the project pin count to match the datasheet exactly, using the datasheet as the source of truth
Table
| Field | Current project value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Part Number | IGC033S10S1XTMA1 | Looks correct |
| Manufacturer Name | Infineon | Correct |
| Designator Prefix | Q | Correct for a transistor |
| Datasheet URL | Present | Present, so no update needed |
| Description | GaN FETs MV GAN DISCRETES | Too vague / not library-friendly |
| Package / Case Code | Not set in visible project properties | Missing |
| Part Type | Not set in visible project properties | Missing |
From the datasheet, this device is an Infineon CoolGaN transistor, 100 V, G3, in PG-TSON-6 package, with headline values including 100 V drain-source rating, 2.4 mOhm typical (RDS(on)), 76 A continuous drain current, 43 nC output charge, 11 nC total gate charge, and 0 nC reverse recovery charge. The package is explicitly listed as PG-TSON-6
Key specs summary
Table
| Spec | Value |
|---|---|
| Technology | GaN transistor |
| Drain-source voltage | 100 V |
| Pulsed drain-source voltage | 120 V |
| Continuous drain current | 76 A |
| Pulsed drain current | 700 A at 25 C |
| Typical (RDS(on)) | 2.4 mOhm |
| Total gate charge | 11 nC typ |
| Output charge | 43 nC typ |
| Reverse recovery charge | 0 nC |
| Package | PG-TSON-6 |
| Junction temperature | -40 C to +150 C |
| Storage temperature | -55 C to +150 C |
These are the kinds of part-level metadata the sync guidance says should be reflected in project properties and description where applicable
Datasheet pinout
The datasheet pin table shows only these 6 numbered pins:
Table
| Pin | Name | Function |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gate | Gate |
| 2 | Drain | Drain |
| 3 | Source | Source |
| 4 | Drain | Drain |
| 5 | Source | Source |
| 6 | Source | Source |
The datasheet also notes that the top side exposed silicon substrate is internally connected to source and is not recommended to use as an electrical connection. That does not appear to be presented as an extra numbered electrical pin in the extracted pin table.
Mismatches flagged
1) Pin count mismatch
- Project: 14 terminals / 14 pads
- Datasheet: 6 numbered pins
This is the clearest mismatch. The sync rules explicitly require the symbol pin count to match the datasheet exactly, including any exposed pad only if it is listed as a pin
2) Symbol naming / logical pin mapping mismatch
The current symbol appears to model:
- 1 gate terminal
- 2 drain terminals
- 10 source terminals
That does not match the datasheet, which shows:
- 1 gate pin
- 2 drain pins
- 3 source pins
So the symbol currently over-represents source connections.
3) Pin properties incomplete
All existing terminals currently have:
Pin Type = Unspecified
The sync guidance says pin types should be mapped from the datasheet rather than left unspecified when the function is known
For this part, the sensible mapping would be:
- Gate -> Input or Unspecified depending on how you want ERC to behave
- Drain / Source -> likely Passive for a discrete transistor part symbol, unless you prefer a stricter custom convention
The current terminals do not include meaningful pin descriptions. The sync workflow recommends short functional descriptions per pin, such as concise labels rather than long copied text
5) Footprint mismatch
The layout currently contains 14 pads, but the package in the datasheet is PG-TSON-6 with a 6-pin package outline and a specific footprint drawing. That strongly suggests the footprint was created from package artwork/stencil features rather than true electrical pins.
6) Package metadata missing
The visible project properties do not currently include a package/case field, even though the datasheet clearly identifies PG-TSON-6. The part-project sync guidance recommends keeping package metadata aligned to the datasheet using the exact package string
Recommended project metadata cleanup
I’d flag these as the most useful property updates:
Table
| Property | Recommended value |
|---|---|
| Part Type | GaN FET or MOSFET |
| Package or Case Code | PG-TSON-6 |
| Description | 100 V CoolGaN transistor, 2.4 mOhm typ RDS(on), 76 A, PG-TSON-6 |
| Operating Temperature | -40 C to +150 C |
| Max Current | 76 A |
This part project is not yet datasheet-accurate.
What matches
- MPN
- Manufacturer
- Designator prefix
- Datasheet URL present
- Pin count
- Symbol terminal mapping
- Footprint pad count
- Pin types
- Pin descriptions
- Package metadata
- Project description quality
If you want, I can fix the project next by:
- reducing the symbol to the correct 6-pin definition,
- aligning pad count to the PG-TSON-6 package,
- setting pin names/numbers/descriptions,
- and filling in the missing project metadata.
Fix all mismatches
Update metadata fields
Show exact pin map
